spuren bekommen...; for Russia people painted a picture of how 100 million peasants would unite with the proletariat..., peasants who had not yet been taken to school by capitalist bourgeoisie» («Neue Zeit», page 909). That is precisely Russian Quesseltum!*

The Russian Quessel forgot to say that in the agrarian programme of Russian social-democrats (adopted in Stockholm, 1906, when the Mensheviks had a majority!!)
it states «support for revolutionary uprisings of the peasantry up to the point of confiscation of landlords' lands». Is there anything similar in «Europe», oh Russian Quessel?

No, because in Europe there is no longer a revolutionary formulation of bourgeois-revolutionary questions. The «school of capitalist bourgeoisie» for Russian peasants is a school of treachery and betrayals by the liberal bourgeoisie (which betrayed the peasants to the landowners and absolutism), and only the most extreme opportunists can defend such a school.

In mocking the «union with the proletariat of 100 million peasants», Martov mocks the entire revolution, which demonstrated in practice such a union both in the arena of uprising (October, November-December 1905) and in the arena of both first Dumas (1906 and 1907).

Martov helplessly waver between the liberals (who are against «confiscation of lands», against «revolutionary uprisings of the peasantry») and social-democrats,
who until now have not renounced in the slightest the support of peasant uprisings and the declaration of this in their programme.

Martov thinks that what was on the order of the day during the years of revolution (1905-7) was not the question of the republic, but «die Frage der Unabhangigkeit der Volksvertretung» (p. 918)**. Independence from whom? From the monarchy, which was committing

* - «Throughout all Western Europe peasant masses are considered suitable for alliance only insofar as they become acquainted with the grave consequences of the capitalist revolution in agriculture...; for Russia people painted themselves a picture of the union with the proletariat of 100 million peasants..., who had not yet been in the school of capitalist bourgeoisie» («Neue Zeit», p. 909). That is Russian quesseltum! Ed.

** - «the question of the independence of popular representation» (p. 918). Ed.

Staatsstreiche?* Russian opportunists forget at least the connection between the agrarian and political revolution (is it possible to fight for confiscation of lands without fighting for a republic?), they forget that the epoch of der Staatsstreiche, der Aufstande, der Niederwerfungsstreiks** by virtue of its objective conditions, and not by our will, puts the question of the republic on the order of the day. «Republic» as the slogan of the day in 1905 = «romanticism»; «independence» (from the monarchy committing Staatsstreiche and waging den Burgerkrieg*** ) = Realpolitik****, —
is that not so, oh Russian Quessel?

A propos*****. Rosa Luxemburg disputed with Kautsky over whether the moment of Niederwerfungsstrategie****** had arrived for Germany, and Kautsky said clearly and directly that he considers this moment inevitable and near, but not yet arrived. And Martov, «deepening» (verballhornend) Kautsky, denies the applicability of der Niederwerfungsstrategie to 1905 in Russia!! Martov finds that the uprising of December 05 was «kunstlich»******* provoked («Neue Zeit», p. 913). Die Leute, welche so glauben, konnen nur kunstlich zur Sozialdemokratie gerechnet werden. Naturlich sind sie Nationalliberale********

Martov mocks the view that the proletariat was «die ausschlaggebende Macht»********* (p. 909) in the revolution. Only liberals have dared (and even then not always) to deny the indisputable historical fact that the Russian proletariat actually played the role of «the decisive force» in 1905. And when a theory denying

* - state coups. Ed.

** - state coups, uprisings, mass political strikes. Ed.

*** - civil war. Ed.

**** - real politics. Ed.

***** - By the way. Ed.

****** - strategy of overthrow. Ed.

******* - «artificially». Ed.

******** - People who think thus can only artificially be reckoned as social-democrats. Essentially, they are national-liberals. Ed.

********* - «decisive force» (in this case in the sense of: leading, guiding force). Ed.